DEFENSE OF AMERICANISM. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON. JACOB BROOM, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


DELIVERED 




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 4, 185G. 


The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the 
slate of the Union— 

Mr. BROOM said; For a long time, sir, I have 
been in hopes that an opportunity would occur 
to enable me to meet the charges and denuncia¬ 
tions against the A merican organization, that have 
been uttered on this floor since the commence¬ 
ment of the present session; and although zealous 
in my determination to do so, 1 have, neverthe¬ 
less, not wished to intrude upon that time of the 
House more appropriately belonging to its legiti¬ 
mate business—which time, I regret to say, has 
been almost entirely consumed in a fruitless dis¬ 
cussion of the slavery question. Into that ques¬ 
tion, sir, I have made it a point heretofore not to 
be drawn; nor shall I now enter into a considera¬ 
tion of its merits. But I may remark, in passing, 
that this evil has spread its influence over the 
whole extent of our land. Instead of allaying the 
excitement existing among the people of this 
nation, it has but tended to enlarge the breach, 
and more widely to separate them. 

I have looked on both contending sides as being 
more or less in error—an error which I hope 
reflection and reason will teach them in the future 
to correct. The main error, it occurs to me, exists 
on the part of the North in preferring the charge 
against the South of having brought this evil on 
the country by its abrogation of the Missouri 
compromise. It stands upon the record of the 
country that that measure was supported by 
northern Democrats, adopted by a northern Presi¬ 
dent, and forced upon the nat^^in a partisan spirit. 
It is shown further, by the record of the House, 
that when that measure-%the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill—came up, the best spirits of the South joined 
in opposing its passage here and in the Senate; 
and their speeches were^Aiite as full, earnest, 
and vigorous, in opposition to the measure, as 
were those of the northern men who were in the 
House at that time. v Correct this evil—the error 
of making this charge Against the South—and you 
heal, in a great measure, thwtoitterness which an 
unfounded charge has eng<^fc^d^t the part of 
southern members. 

L S 


Mr. MATTESON. I understand the gentle¬ 
man from Pennsylvania to say that the repeal of 
the Missouri compromise was an act proposed by 
the North ? 

Mr. BROOM. I have said that Democrats of 
the North supported the measure as a part of the 
policy of the Administration. 

Mr. MATTESON. I wish to say this: I 
believe the record shows that the distinct repeal 
of the Missouri compromise was proposed by a 
southern man—Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky—and 
not by a northern man. 

Mr. BROOM. I shall have to request th'e 
members of the committee to hear me. If they 
have anything to propound to me, I shall thank 
them to do it after I have got through the course 
of my argument. I do not want to be interrupted. 
I will answer the gentleman from New York, 
that it matters not by what individual it was pro¬ 
posed, whether he was from the North or the 
South. It was voted for and sustained by Demo¬ 
crats, North and South, and opposed and voted 
against by national men from both quarters. I 
care not where it was concocted. I speak of the 
spirit of the southern members on this floor, who 
opposed it in vigorous and able speeches, and 
who struggled manfully against it—which is more 
than I can say for some of the northern Dem¬ 
ocrats, I place the fault at the door where it be¬ 
longs; but I do not wish to be drawn into this 
discussion, I will merely observe, however, that 
I took up a paper, only to-day, in which I read 
an extract from a speech of the distinguished Sen¬ 
ator from Texas, [Mr, Houston,] who says: 

“Where is that Democracy to-day? Swallowed up in 
unmitigated squatter sovereignty — in sectional bickering 
and disputes—in disregarding compacts between the different 
sections of the Union —the repeal of which has led to insur¬ 
rection in Kansas.” 

Such, sir, is still the view of national southern 
men on this subject; and instead of bringing these 
unfounded charges against the South, had north¬ 
ern men met those southern men, who had op¬ 
posed the measure, as brethren »f the common 
nation, and consulted with them upon a remedy. 







2 



mischief might not have arisen. But it is done ! 
now, and I know not what we can do to repair it. j 
Having noticed that error, I pass now to the 
subject on which I intended more particularly to 
address the committee. It will be recollected 
that, on the 5th of January last, in this House, I 
made an appeal to those who had been elected 
as Americans to come to the organization of the 
House on the basis on which the majority of its 
members had been elected—not the slavery ques¬ 
tion, but that of the American. In the course of 
that debate, the American party was assailed by ! 
the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] 
which elicited from me a response. That reply j 
brought to his feet my colleague from the fifth 
congressional district of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Cad- 
walader,] who, in the course of his speech, let 
fall assertions which I was unwilling should go 
to the country unanswered; but to answer which, 
an opportunity, up to this time, has not been be¬ 
fore presented to me—assertions monstrous in 
their error, and in a subserviency of spirit to the 
foreign power of this country, which I cannot 
look upon as creditable to the American character. 

I read from his speech: 


“ [ rise, because there fell from my colleague, [Mr. 
Broom,] with what I believe to have been a deluded, though 
•perfect sincerity, certain references to past occurrences 
which he chooses to call historical. These are the melan¬ 
choly occurrences at Philadelphia in the years 1843 and 
1844, when this American party was, for a brief season, an 
open instead of a secret organization, fn those days there 
were occurrences which the honorable gentleman truly 
describes as historical ; but he has given What I believe to 
be an altogether erroneous statement of the historical facts 
to which he refers. 

“ Let me briefly state what is the version of those who 
differ from him with equal sincerity of belief, and with at 
least equal means of knowledge.” * * * “In the years 
1843-44 there were'heralded, in front of the dwelling-houses 
of a portion of our naturalized population who professed a 
religion entitled in this land to equal toleration with any 
other, placards and banners, and paraded through the streets 
which they inhabited with every species of public demon¬ 
stration insulting to their religious creed. Mohs, composed 
of such outlaws as I have described, paraded, as is usual, 
through certain suburbs of the city, side by side with those 
who thus tauntingly displayed these insulting insignia. As 
soon as a few poor, humble, naturalized citizens were 
goaded into natural expressions of resentment at these un¬ 


provoked insults, then, sir, began a work of which 1 will 
only mention the results. The results will suffice. These 
results were the burning of dwelling houses, every one of 5 
which was inhabited by uaturalized citizens and Catho¬ 
lics.” 


Now, sir, I say that I consider it monstrous that 
an American should thus disparage the character 
of his American brethren, by imputing to them 
an unprovoked act of that kind, which, in my 
judgment, would be disgraceful in the highest 
degree, not only to those concerned in it, butalso 
to such as would unite with a party growing out 
of it; the extravagance of which, so far as I am 
individually involved, I cannot consider to be 
lessened by the imputation to me of “ a deluded 
though perfect sincerity . ” 

At this point of his remarks, he was applied to 
by my honorable friend from New York, [Mr. 
Whitney,] that patriotic and vigilant sentinel on I 
the battlements ot American freedom, who pro¬ 
pounded a question, which led to the following 
colloquy: 


“ Mr. Whitney. Let me ask the gentleman a question. 11 
“ Mr. Cadwaiader. In a moment. I say, and I repeat 
it, that they burned dwelling-houses of poor, unoffending ! 
citizens, not one of them a native-born, and not one of i 
them a Protestant. It did not cease here. What fol- I 


lowed? Churches were next destroyed, and their rains* 
smoked in the city for days. The churches were those of 
our fellow-citizens who professed the Catholic religion.” 

•k it * * it it k it it it 

“Mr. Whitney. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
given to the House the beginning and the sequel to what 
he is pleased to designate as a history. I would ask him to 
relate the intermediate events of that history. What causes 
led to the incendiary acts of which he speaks? What prov¬ 
ocation was given ? Were not Americans murdered in cold 
blood in the public streets? Were they not slain by the 
assassins’ bullets, fired from those very houses, and by those 
very foreigners, at a moment when those American citizens 
were peaceably exercising a constitutional right? 

“Mr. Cadwalader. I will answer the gentleman, al¬ 
though what he calls a question is, in an interrogative form, 
a repetition of the very assertion of my colleague, to which 
I had risen to reply. It has been asserted- 

“Mr. Whitney, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman 
answer my question, whether Americans were not mur¬ 
dered from those houses? 

“ Mr. Cadwalader. It has been asserted, and the as¬ 
sertion has been contradicted, that the event stated by the 
gentleman from New York occurred. I, myself, do not be¬ 
lieve it; and I never did. 

“ Mr. W hitney. Whatever diversity of statement may 
have appeared to palliate the atrocity, there could exist no 
diversity of fact. The cold corpses of eight murdered Jlmer- 
cans were there, the ghastly, but silent w itness of the deed l 

“ Mr. Cadwalader. I reply by saying that there were 
two versions of those facts, and also as to the origin of the 
occurrence. There are always, on such occasions, contra¬ 
dictory assertions on the question which party was the ag¬ 
gressor. The gentleman from New York, I say again, has 
only repeated, in the form of an interrogatory, what my 
colleague from Pennsylvania primarily asserted. There is 
here again, then, I repeat, a different version of that part 
of those occurrences. 

“ If the fact were even so, that a poor foreigner or Cath¬ 
olic vms taunted into an act of lawless retaliation Jvr unpro¬ 
voked insults, would that have justified, from men claiming 
to be enlightened native citizens, and calling themselves 
Americans—would it have justified species of revenge 
such as was perpetrated on that occasion, in a country call¬ 
ing itself a land of freedom—a revenge more cruel, more 
brutal, and more ferocious, than that of the savages of the 
wilderness ?” 

Now a word for history. Since the gentleman 
made that speech in this House, I have picked 
up in a book-store a work entitled “ Incidents in 
American History,” by J. W. Barber,published 
by George F. Cooledge & Brother, New York. 
In it, at page 299, I find the following: 

“Riots in Philadelphia. —On the afternoon of Friday, 
May 3, 1844, a political meeting of the Native American 
party (of the ward) was held in a vacant lot at the corner of 
Second and Master streets, Kensington ; a quarter of the 
city where many Irish Catholics resided. The meeting 
(consisting of fifteen) was soon interrupted by an assault of 
a large body of Irish, men and women, who rushed simul¬ 
taneously towards the platform, which they speedily demol¬ 
ished, and compelled the whole body of Native Americans 
to flee, under a shower of missiles, accompanied with 
shouts, hisses, and groans. This outrage produced much 
excitement throughout the city and county. On the fol¬ 
lowing Monday, May 6, the Native American party reas¬ 
sembled at the same place, in great numbers, for the avow'ed 
purpose of testing their right to meet, even in the midst ot 
•an Irish population, without molestation. 

“The American flag was raised over the platform, and 
two or three addresses delivered without interruption. A 
sudden shower of rain then dispersed the multitude, most 
of whom took refuge in a market-house in an adjoining 
street. Here the meeting was reorganized ; but as soon as 
the speaker had taken the stand, a disturbance occurred, in 
which a pistol was fired, at the report of which the majority 
of the Assembly dispersed. The Irish in the neighboring 
houses now rushed out to join in the fray. F ire-arms were 
discharged by them upon the assembly, and several were 
wounded, some mortally. The Native Americans were 
driven from the ground, but they soon rallied around the 
remnants of their flag, which had been torn in shreds by the 
Irish, and after a contest of about an hour, succeeded in 
driving them into their houses,” &,c. 

Such is the narrative given in this book, which 
I had never seen before, but which it will be 













3 


found is corroborated by other accounts of those 
events which shook the foundation of social order, 
and fora while threatened the most extensive and 
serious results, and to which I shall now proceed. 

In order to show the motive and character of 
the movement, 1 refer to the call for the meeting: 

r “A meeting 0 / the native-horn citizens of the Third Ward, 
Kensington, was held on Monday evening, the 29th ultimo. 
After electing officers, they adjourned to meet in mass meet¬ 
ing on Friday afternoon, May 3, at six o’clock, at the cor¬ 
ner of Second and Master streets. All friendly to the cause 
are invited to attend. 

“ WILLIAM CRAIG, President. 

*‘ John McManus, Secretary.^ 

The motive was legal and proper, and was sus¬ 
tained by the charge of Judge King, who was 
the president judge of the county court, and one 
of the most able jurists in the country. I turn 
now to extracts from his charge in the case of 
John Daly, convicted of riot and murder, on the 
18th of September, 1844: 

“The meeting of the 3d of May, 1844, was called for the ; 
purpose of considering the expediency of a proposed alter- ' 
ation of the laws of the United States, in reference to the ! 
naturalization of foreigners, and promoting the ends and 
objects of the association known as the Native American 
party. The meeting was organized, and the officers being 
placed on a platform erected for the purpose, Mr. S. R. 
Kramer commenced an address, but was interrupted by a 
large number of persons opposed to the objects of the meet¬ 
ing, among whom this defendant was particularly promi- 
uent. A scene of confusion arose, and shortly after, the 
opponents of this meeting rushed forward, pulled down the 
platform, and dispersed the meeting. To this violence the 1 1 
meeting offered no resistance, preferring to submit to the 
aggression rather than resort to a forcible maintenance of j I 
their rights. It was, however, agreed to by some, that an ; j 
adjourned meeting forthe same purposes should be held on I 
Monday, the 6th of May, at four o’clock in the afternoon, 
at the same place. 

“ If the call of the meeting of the 3d of May was address- | 
ed exclusively to persons favorable to its objects, the inter¬ 
ference of individuals hostile to its proceedings, and the 
breaking up and dispersion of the meeting by them, was a 
gross outrage on the rights of those who called it. It was a 
riot of a flagrant kind. Any body of citizens, having in view 
a constitutional and legal purpose, have the right peaceably 
and quietly to assemble together for its consideration and 
discussion. Any attempt by another body of citizens op¬ 
posed to the objects of the assembly, to interrupt and dis¬ 
perse it, is not to be tolerated. In this instance it has led to I 
the long train of riots, murders, and arsons, which have dis¬ 
graced our city and shaken the foundations of social order.” j 
* * * * * *■ * 

“ The attorney general insists that the whole case shows 
an original and formed design in the defendant and his as- , 
sociates to disperse any meeting having for its object that j 
contemplated by the meeting of Friday, the 3d of May, and 
to destroy and kill those concerned in it, if their object 
could be accomplished in no other way. He insists that j 
the whole conduct of Daly and his associates manifest that | 
such was their intention, and that the affair of the hose- 
house was a mere pretext to cover a deeper and deadlier 
design.” 

j 

Here, sir, is a judge, who was not with us polit-1| 
ically, presenting in his charge to the jury, con- |j 
curred in by the attorney general of the State, 
that the rights of Americans had been grossly 
outraged. And by whom, sir? By those whom j 
our fathers had, in a feeling of philanthropy, in- ij 
vited to this country to become our co-sharers in 
the benefits and blessings of republican freedom, j 

1 shall not have time, sir, in the hour allotted, j 
to go through the occurrences of that period in jj 
detail; but I shall endeavor to present them suf- jj 
ficiently for a full understanding of that portion jj 
of the history of the internal working of our j 
society of free government participated in by the , 
uneducated and licentious alien. 

An extract from the United States Gazette, a j 


paper then edited by Hon. Joseph R. Chandler, 
since a Representative in Congress from the sec¬ 
ond congressional district in Pennsylvania, will 
serve to express the general sentiment then prev¬ 
alent as to the enormity of the outrage which 
gave rise to the riot in the district of Kensington. 
This paper, one of extended circulation at that 
time,ably conducted, very influential, and gov¬ 
erned by a spirit of honor and truth, was strongly 
corroborated by every paper, political, inde¬ 
pendent, and neutral, then published in the city 
and county of Philadelphia. The report in that 
paper is as follows: 

11 Jill statements agree in the fact, that the meeting was 
disturbed, wantonly and wickedly, by persons who had 
not been called to the meeting, and who, consequently, 
had no right to utter a word, with reference to the 
proceedings.” 

The Daily Chronicle also said: 

“ One of the speakers was about to address the meeting, 
when a shot was fired, either from the house of the Hibernia 
Hose company, in Cadwalader street, or from the house 
adjoining, which killed a young man named John Wesley 
Rliinedollar, a ship carpenter, on the spot. Rage, indigna¬ 
tion, and fury, immediately seized upon the meeting, and in 
an instant one of the most bloody and melancholy scenes 
followed that was ever witnessed in this country. 

“ A continued succession of volleys of musketry were 
fired from the row of Irish houses in Cadwalader street, 
which was kept up without intermission for more than 
three hours. The men in these houses were evidently 
prepared for a conflict.” 

The Pennsylvanian, a most vigorous Demo¬ 
cratic sheet, and ably edited, used this language: 

“ A rush was made, in consequence of a gun fired across 
a lot, from the vicinity of the Hibernia Hose house. Then 
commenced one of the most dreadful scenes, &c. From 
every street and house came rushing to the scene of action, 
armed men; some with muskets, others with bludgeons, 
stones, &lc. Those in possession of the market-house 
maintained their ground and held aloft the flag—the star- 
spangled banner.” 

Even the Spirit of the Times, which after¬ 
wards became a miserable partisan sheet, and 
the organ of the invaders, acknowledged that— 

‘‘Amass meeting of the Native American party took 
place yesterday in consequence of a previous gathering of 
the American party in Kensington being attacked and dis¬ 
persed by a mob of Irish citizens, on Friday night last.” 

All these papers agreed in the fact that the 
American meeting had been wantonly disturbed 
by naturalized citizens; that those naturalized 
citizens had thereby abused the great privilege of 
American freedom. But I cannot forbear from 
presenting to the committee one more extract, 
and that is from the Public Ledger, an indepen 
dent paper, still published in the city of Phil¬ 
adelphia, which, from the propriety and correct¬ 
ness of its views, ought to be perpetuated. It is 
in the following words: 

“ No one will hesitate to say that the Native American 
party, having called a public meeting, had a perfect right to 
carry on their proceedings in peace ; and the disturbance 
they met with, from persons opposed to the objects of the 
meeting, was as gross an outrage as ever was perpetrated 
upon the rights of any body of free citizens. It has come to a 
pretty pass, if, in availing themselves of their constitutional 
rights, they are to be assailed by others, and their lives 
sacrificed in the public streets.” * * * “The pre¬ 

sumption that mischief was intended, is confirmed by the 
conduct of a reckless set of ruffians, who, a few evenings 
since, broke up a meeting assembled for a similar purpose. 
Such conduct as this is not to be tolerated in any coun¬ 
try, much less in ours, where the hand of fellowship and 
good feeling has always been extended to the emigrant 
from other shores.” * * * “ It is a poor return for 

these favors, if they are to turn round and strike at the 
liberty and rights of those who have so generously given 
them power to do so.” 



















In that struggle eight Americans were killed: 
George Sliiffler, J. Wesley Rhinedollar, George 
Young, William Wright, Charles Cox, Nathan 
Ramsay, Lewis Greble, and Matthew Hamit. 

These innocent men, in the midst of their en¬ 
joyment of the rights and privileges to which 
they were born, were inhumanly murdered by 
these adopted aliens, in furtherance of a settled 
design on their part, concerning our system of 
public education, as I shall show conclusively be¬ 
fore I close my remarks. 

I deem it proper that these events should be 
brought before the Congress of the nation, that 
the people may be advised of them, and that the 
tocsin should be sounded from the pinnacle of their 
representation. For although time has intervened, 
the causes which occasioned the riot still exist, 
and have increased rather than diminished. 

The consequence was the formation extens¬ 
ively, of American associations. Their princi¬ 
ples, which did honor to the head and heart of 
American patriots, were published and widely 
circulated. Newspapers were established at im¬ 
mense expense as organs for the promulgation of 
their political doctrines. State and National con¬ 
ventions became of annual occurrence, and all of 
their proceedings were characterized by dignity, 
forbearance, sound sense, and patriotism; and 1 
challenge contradiction,from the closest scrutiny 
of our opponents. 

But those principles failed to secure that atten¬ 
tion and consideration which their importance 
required. The spirit of party had already mad¬ 
dened the brain of its devotees. Yet the shock 
occasioned by the events alluded to, had the effect 
of arousing them to a brief lucid interval, which 
resulted, at the first election thereafter, in a tre¬ 
mendous triumph of the entire principles on which 
the Native American party was organized. This 
speaks volumes of itself. The people rushed, in 
a patriotic spirit, to the indorsement of the organ¬ 
ization of that party while those uncontradicted 
events were fresh upon their memory, and thus 
fully vindicated the necessity which called for it. 
The city of New York was no less patriotic. Its 
full and unconditional indorsement, also, of the 
same principles seemed to indicate that the people 
of America kept a constant and vigilant eye upon 
their institutions of freedom. But with very 
many the interval passed, and they again relapsed 
into the frenzy of party. 

The. American organization, sir, did not result 
from the mere circumstance of a meeting having 
been assailed; but events, prior and subsequent 
thereto, only too clearly indicated a settled design 
on the part of a secret combination of aliens, who 
were enemies to the Protestant Bible, upon the 
institution of public education, which had been 
wisely founded and adapted to the requirements 
of social government. 

The events of Kensington were by no means 
the commencement of difficulties between the 
native born and the adopted citizen; nor did those 
difficulties begin in the city of Philadelphia. In 
the New York Herald of Tuesday, June 20,1854, 
which I hold in my hand, I find a compilation of 
events indicating the rise and progress of the Na¬ 
tive American cause, from which it appears that 
in 1835, a mechanic (who had no doubt tasted 
the bitter fruit of party subserviency to foreign 
influence) moved in the matter against the secret 


combination of Tammany Hall foreign politicians, 
who sought to control the movements of party, 
and succeeded in establishing a Native American 
association. Many Democrats approved of it, 
and became members; but jealousies and bicker¬ 
ings retarded its advancement for the time, the 
impression having been created that it was in¬ 
tended as an auxiliary to the old Whig party. 
Subsequently, however, it became manifest, 
through “ the operations of Bishop Hughes, 
(says the New York Plerald, from which I read,) 
on the public school question, which at one time 
caused the nomination of a Catholic ticket for 
Senate and Assembly, and bad the effect to cause 
divisions between Americans and adopted citi¬ 
zens at Tammany Hall.’' Thus, then, the New 
York Herald ascribes to foreign Catholics, headed 
by Bishop Hughes, a church movement in the po¬ 
litical affairs of this country, the first introduction 
of “ religion” into the arena of politics, hereto¬ 
fore falsely alleged against the Native Americans. 
“ A Catholic ticket for Senate and Assembly” on the 
school question ! Let that be remembered by our 
opponents, and let them search the record to 
prove otherwise. , 

But I will go no further into the history of 
events in the city of New York. That same 
Catholic spirit concerning the school question 
afterwards began its operations in the city and 
county of Philadelphia. It was met by Philadel¬ 
phians in a peaceable and constitutional manner 
—by public meetings and patriotic resolutions. 
These were the meetings which were disturbed 
in Kensington, not by any sudden outbreak,but 
by premeditated design, as manifested by port¬ 
holes in the houses of the Irish Catholics in the 
immediate vicinity of the place at which the meet¬ 
ing had been called, through which the rifle sent 
its missile, winged with death, to drink the heart’s 
blood of defenseless and unoffending Americans; 
at this meeting, too, the flag of our fathers was 
torn to pieces by these foreign assailants and dis¬ 
dainfully trampled beneath their feet. 

Sir, as an American, I cannot recur to these 
indignities to our institutions by those who have 
found shelter beneath them from the oppressions 
of the Old World, without experiencing emotions 
unutterable. Nor can I speak the fullness of my 
amazementlhat, in the face of them, and with a 
knowledge of the cause which led to them, Amer¬ 
icans can still hug to their bosoms that Power as 
the idol of their political worship, and bow sub¬ 
missively to such language as the following from 
the Boston Pilot, No. 25, of June 22, 1844, pub¬ 
lished by Irish Catholics: 

<£ If the party of burglars now rampant in the city of Penn, 
and in the city of Rip Van Winkle, possessed as much brains 
collectively as a Choctaw Senate, when by their council 
fire, they would hear that their very existence as a nation 
depends on the Irish population of this country.” * * * * 
“ It ill becomes any American to taunt Irishmen on the 
score of bravery. Native courage is a commodity that needs 
yet to be proved to exist. The fiag of America is not yet sev¬ 
enty years old, and thrice the native sons of America have 
deserted it. Therefore, we advise these cowards and sons 
of cowards to boast moderately. As shop-keepers, they 
are excellent; as merchants, enterprising and persevering; 
as usurers, they have no equals in the world ; but as soldiers, 
every native ought to belong to the peace society.” 

And again: 

“ We are ready to fight the battles of Ireland or Catholic¬ 
ism over again.” 

Now, Mr. Chairman, by my remarks I do not 



















5 




wish to be considered the enemy of the Roman 
Catholic—far from it, sir. I am an uncompro¬ 
mising friend to religious freedom, and would 
protect all in their religious rights, the Catholic 
as well as the Protestant. But, sir, I will submit 
to r no priestly or sectarian interference in civil 
affairs, nor cooperate with any party that will 
tolerate it, or wink at its enormities. Against the 
religious part of the Catholic Church, 1 have 
nothing to say; but, as an American, I have, as 
ever, to interpose between that body, as a civil 
power, and the institutions of my country. 

I pass now, sir, to the consideration of another 
branch of the subject. During the last Congress, 
this nation, nay, I may say, the civilized world, 
was amazed at the boldness of a Representative 
on this floor in raising his voice in denial of the 
well-authenticated history of ages. An honor¬ 
able gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Chan¬ 
dler, in a speech marked by much ability, 
undertook to deny the doctrine of supremacy 
claimed by the Church of Rome. In the outset 
of his remarks, the learned gentleman admitted 
that he stood alone in the House; and from the 
manner in which his leading Catholic advocates 
received his published speech, by contradiction 
of his statements, and its subsequent refutation 
by the papal action in South America, he might 
have used the expression in its most enlarged 
sense. Yes, sir, he may be said to stand alone 
in a vigorous denial of a charge which, to use his 
own language, “is as old as the hostility of Pa¬ 
ganism to Christianity”—a charge which he ad¬ 
mits is founded upon the fact that the Pope has 
exercised it, not as a divine, but as a delegated 
power, conferred upon, him in “ a far distant 
age by Christian (Catholic) princes, to protect 

ppose, 
ving is 

“ Undoubtedly the Pope has proceeded to dethrone Kings, 
and thus to release subjects. History declares that more 
than one monarch has been made to descend from his 
throne, by the edict of the Pope, and that the allegiance of 
his subjects has been transferred by that edict to a succeeding 
monarch , who, however he may have obtained his crown, 
might have been compelled to lay it down at the bidding of 
the same authority that opposed his predecessor.” 

Here, then, sir, we have an unequivocal admis¬ 
sion of the fact that the Pope has exercised tem¬ 
poral authority over monarchs, and lias “ un¬ 
doubtedly proceeded to dethrone kings,” and 
has by his edict, transferred the allegiance of sub¬ 
jects to a succeeding monarch. 

This power, we are told, did not result from 
his divine office, but was a power conferred by 
Christian (Catholic) princes. But, sir, by his¬ 
tory, so farbackasthe year 1245, we are informed 
that this power was claimed as a divine right, 
and so exercised in the dethronement of Frederick 
of Sicily, at the council of Lyons. “ We there¬ 
fore,” says the Pope, having maturely and care¬ 
fully deliberated,” &c.; “ seeing that we, unde¬ 
serving as we are, hold on earth the authority of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who said to us, in tl^e per¬ 
son of St. Peter, ‘ Whatever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound also in heaven,’ Ac., do 
hereby declare the above prince, who has ren¬ 
dered himself unworthy of the honors of sov¬ 
ereignty, and for his crimes has been deposed from 
his throne by God, tfc., and we do hereby sentence 
and deprive him, and all who arc in any way bound 
to him by an oath of allegiance, we forever absolve and , 


them against the infidelity, and, 1 su 
heresy, “ of the middle ages.” The follov 
his admission: 


release from that oath; and by the apostolic authority , 
strictly prohibit any one from obeying him, or 
in any way whatever attempting to obey him as 
an emperor or king.”— Matthew Paris, volume 
2, p. 85. 

The doctrine of supreme temporal jurisdiction, 
“ summa potestas temporalis ,” is recognized by the 
articles of the Council of Trent, sections 15, 22, 
24, and 25, and confirmed by Bellarmine, a dis¬ 
tinguished Catholic writer, (lib. v. 5, de Rom. 
Pon.) The Sacrosanct Council also decreed 
that the jurisdiction reaches to civil offices, even 
though created by imperial or royal authority, 
and that it includes the right to proceed against 
all persons whatsoever.—Sec. 23, ch. 10, 11, 
sec. 25, ch. 3. 

Now, sir, in pursuance of this jure divino, 
popes have dethroned emperors; and in the brief 
period allotted to myself for the examination of 
authorities, I have selected the following in¬ 
stances: By Gregory VII., Henry IV., of Ger¬ 
many, was deprived of his regal authority; and 
Otho IV. by Pope Innocent III. Innocent IV. 
deposed Frederick II.; and Louis IV. was de¬ 
throned by Clement VI. 

Thus, sir, hath that ecclesiastical body, time 
out of mind, claimed and exercised domination 
over civil government. And even at a later period, 
within the last five years, the living Pope has 
expressed himself contrary to the doctrine enun?- 
ciated upon this floor by the honorable gentle¬ 
man from Pennsylvania. Hear what he says, in 
an allocution to the cardinals, in September, 1851: 
that he has “ taken this principle for basis, that 
the Catholic religion, with all its rights, ought to 
be exclusively dominant in such sort that every 
other worship shall be banished and inter¬ 
dicted.” 

Now, sir, what does that mean ? Mark you, the 
expression is not merely that the Catholic religion 
ought to be exclusively dominant over every other 
religion, but “exclusively dominant iv such 
sort,” or manner, that every other worship 
should be banished and prohibited. And this is 
the power which, by the spirit of party, is fos¬ 
tered and cherished within the limits of our Con¬ 
federacy; while from abroad, by the activity and 
energy of the Leopold society, and of the associa¬ 
tions of London and France, and all Catholic 
Europe, under newly devised plans of emigration, 
and with the avowed object of promoting the 
Catholic mission in the United States, its strength 
is almost hourly increasing here. 

Now, sir, since I have asserted, and sho'wn by 
the writings of Roman Catholics themselves, 
what they claim in a temporal point of view, it 
may not be uninteresting to cast our eyes over 
the past, and look at the manner in which this 
power was first usurped by the Roman Catholic, 
hierarchy. I do not use the term church, because 
if it were only a church—as I have before re¬ 
marked, I should have nothing to say. But I 
think it is well established that it is an organized 
temporal power, grasping at the reins of all civii 
and ecclesiastical government on earth. 

But to proceed. Heathen Rome, so called, had 
acquired universal power over nations; and as 
Rome was claimed to be the queen of cities, so 
the head of the Church there established conceived 
the idea of his being king of bishops throughout 
the extent of the Roman possessions. Rome 
fell—-her glory departed—her strength decayed 











The reins of its temporal government were grasped 
by the king of bishops, whose pretensions and 
usurpations were supported by the entire priest¬ 
hood. The throne of Caesar became the seat of 
the “universal bishop,” and the most cunning 
and vigorous means were exercised to rivet and 
extend the power of the Church. But Rome had 
rival Powers with which she shared her usurped 
authorities, until the apostacy of Constantinople 
and the invasion of Alexandria and Antioch by 
Mahomet, and the consequent downfall of their 
bishoprics. No longer trammeled by the inter¬ 
ference of any temporal power, the Church there 
established at once assumed all authority, tem¬ 
poral and spiritual, over the afFairs of her people, 
and sought to confirm it by securing the acquies¬ 
cence of surrounding princes. They were inse¬ 
cure in their own seats, and gladly accepted her 
proposition to extend to them strength and sup¬ 
port, even on the condition of their adherence to 
the Church. By such means was her spiritual 
authority first established, until, by the edicts of 
Theodosius II., and Valentinian III., the bishop 
of Rome was proclaimed “ ruler of the whole 
Church. ” The acquisition of the Vandals, Visi¬ 
goths, and the barbarians of the West, vastly ex¬ 
tended her spiritual sway; and site became em¬ 
boldened to make the effort to drive the Greek 
emperors from Italy—they who were the lawful 
sovereigns of the country. But dangers beset her 
from the Arabs, who threatened to light upon the 
seven hills and supplant her authority by Ma¬ 
hometanism. Aided and protected in the hour of 
her danger by Pepin, her power was in return 
extended to establish him in his own usurped 
authority over the Franks—and he also bound 
himself to the defense of “ The Republic of 
God.” 

Until the time of Gregory VII., the temporal 
power of the Pope was but in embryo. He sought 
energetically to establish it. Rome was to be en¬ 
tirely liberated and supreme. Subjection to tem¬ 
poral monarchs he considered incompatible with 
the divine rights of the Pope. The arrogant pre¬ 
tensions of kings and princes to rule over the 
subjects of God were to be trampled under foot. 
Rome had been once all powerful under empe¬ 
rors; it could and should be so again as papal 
Rome; and under his administration, and that of 
his successors, it was made so throughout the 
entire dominions of the Church Says D’Au- 
bigne, (vol. 1, p. 25:) 

“ Thus everythin? was changed in the Church. At the 
beginning it was a society of brethren, and now an absolute 
monarchy is reared in the midst of them. All Christians 
were priests of the living God, with humble pastors for their 
guidance. But a lofty head is uplifted from the midst of these 
pastors; a mysterious voice utters words full of pride ; an 
iron hand compels all men, small and great, rich and poor, 
freemen and slaves, to take the mark of its power.” * * * * 
“ Every tribe, language, and nation of Christendom, submit¬ 
ted to the dominion of this spiritual king, who had received 
power to overcome.” 

Such, sir, is the view taken by D’Aubigne. 
Such the view of other able writers; and I have 
dwelt upon the subject, more particularly as to 
the political character of that body, because, sir, 
that is the question which has yet, sooner or 
later, to be met on this soil. Past history narrates 
to us the scenes through which Crusaders have 
i waded almost knee-deep in blood to sustain and 
uphold the temporal power of that Church. We 
know what has been the action of the Jesuits 
of Rome in the different nations of Europe. They 


6 


have carried their warfare, upon the system of 
liberal education, through Russia, Germany, Hol¬ 
land, - England, Switzerland, and other nations, 
and at one time came near overthrowing even the 
powerful autocracy of Russia by the blows which 
they aimed at the educational system of that 
nation, and their attempt to instill their peculiar 
: doctrine of Church supremacy in the minds of the 
j youth of the land. Therefore, I say that I have 
dwelt on this subject more particularly, because 
I believe the doctrine of Church and State is the 
question which will have to be met before many 
years shall have passed over the heads of this 
too confiding people; for it is apparent that the 
same spirit of opposition to republican education 
is actively at work on our shores, and, unless 
checked, must end in conflict. 

But the Papal power dare not yet assume upon 
our shores a position in temporal authority, nor 
to issue an edict openly against the power of our 
Federal Constitution. Yet the dogmas of the 
Church, including that of the spiritual supremacy, 
belong to the Church, are made part of it, and exist 
wherever the Church exists, although in many 
instances “ inconvenient to be exercised;” as I 
trust, th rough the patriotism of American freemen, 
it shall be ever so found upon the soil of their 
birth. 

But if this power cannot conveniently be openly 
exercised, it may be, has been,and is, insidiously 
exerted upon the civil affairs of our nation, and 
directed against the most vital and important prin¬ 
ciples of our Republic. It is not to be*found, 
sir, in the devotion of the pious Catholic at the 
altar of his God, nor in the last solemn rite ad¬ 
ministered to the fading and departing spirit. It 
is not in the spiritual, but in the temporal side of 
the Church, and therein has been displayed for 
years past the entire incompatibility between the 
Roman hierarchy and our Republican Govern¬ 
ment. The system of American education, at once 
the basis and pillar of American freedom, is an- 
tagonistical to the settled doctrine of the Church, 
which—although denied by the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Chandler)—is 
displayed in the whole history of the Church from 
its very commencement, through all ages, to the 
present time, and has been, since the speech of 
the honorable gentleman, avowed by a distin¬ 
guished Catholic lecturer in the United States, 
the Dublin Tablet, a Roman Catholic newspaper, 
and the Boston Pilot, which every one knows for 
its zeal to the real interests of the Church. And 
here let me remark, in passing, that I am not dis¬ 
posed to persecute foreign Catholics for striving, 
under their colors, to advance the interest and 
power of their Church; and I am sure that therein 
I speak the sentiments of those who avow them¬ 
selves Americans in a political sense. It is but 
natural to them—they do but regard it as the ful¬ 
fillment of a sacred duty; and I would to Heaven 
that a like sense of duty would touch the hearts 
of all the American born, at least sufficiently to 
lead them to mark the current events of the age, 
and to considerations of safety to their country, 
against all contingencies of danger. 

The people of the United States, sir, are not a 
Roman Catholic people, nor were they ever so; 
and therefore, in the formation of our Govern¬ 
ment, and in the adoption of laws by which, as a 
nation, we exist, the question of their incompat¬ 
ibility with Romish doctrines was never per- 






















7 


mitted to arise. I say, sir, that, in the original 
foundation of this Government, our fathers were 
not moved by considerations favorable to the 
Roman Catholic dogmas, nor is it right or proper 
that such considerations should now be tolerated 
in the establishment of an educational system, 
whereby to prepare the youth of our Government, 
by intelligence and patriotism, to uphold and sus¬ 
tain the institutions of freedom. This, I con¬ 
tend, is true Democratic doctrine. Our Republic 
is a Democratic Republic, as established by our 
fathers, and those who would now yield to that 
against which those sages carefully guarded, is 
not a Democrat, however loudly he may arrogate 
to himself the title and belief. 

The current history of our States fully develop 
the action of the active but invisible hierarchy. 
The power at Rome commands the whole ma¬ 
chinery under the longestablished lawsandusages 
of the Church. A priesthood almost entirely for¬ 
eign by birth and education, are planted on our 
soil to fulfill their duties of rigid obedience to 
that power, and into the secrets of which it would 
be highly impolitic on its’ part to admit the hon¬ 
orable gentleman from Pennsylvania, or any other 
patriotic native of the American soil, who, I be¬ 
lieve, would fight for their country rather than 
for the Church in a struggle or conflict between 
the two. The Church is undivided on the politi¬ 
cal affairs of this nation; they are together as a 
unit, and, through the means of party, seek to im¬ 
pair, if not to destroy, the public school system 
of the States, by legislating a division of the school 
fund for sectarian purposes. Let that be once 
destroyed, sir, and the power and strength of 
this Republic will fade away to imbecility, and 
clouds of portentous evil will cast their gloomy 
shade upon the present brightness of republican 
freedon. 

I shall not have time, sir, to exhibit fully the 
systematic efforts which have been made, in that 
respect, by the Roman power on this continent, 
and especially in this country. The course of 
legislation which they have incessantly sought, 
through State Legislatures, particularly foradivis- 
ion of the fund raised by taxation for the support 
of the American school system, is sufficiently 
manifest on the journals of those bodies. Their 
object has been avowed. It is for separate Catho¬ 
lic schools—a step which, if successful, would 
clearly contravene the spirit and letter of constitu¬ 
tional limitations. In this movement, the “ Bishop 
of New York ” has taken a prominent part, and 
even a Catholic ticket for the Legislature of that 
State, as I have before shown, was determined 
on. The same object was aimed at in the Mc- 
Clintock bill introduced lately in the Legisla¬ 
ture of Pennsylvania. They have also sought 
appropriations of money for convents and other 
Catholic institutions—such as “ the Sisters of 
Mercy” in Pennsylvania, which, I am informed, 
passed through one branch of the Legislature, 
but was defeated in the other. 

But, sir, if there exists a doubt on this subject, 

I think it must be instantly expelled in the mind J 
of him who will calmly and dispassionately peruse j 
the letter of Bishop Phelan to the Attorney Gen¬ 
eral of Upper Canada. If, then, he shall not be 
convinced of priestly interference in politics, and 
of the settled purpose and design of that Church 
to destroy unison of public education, I cannot 


! conceive to what extent he may desire to have it 
j shown. Plere is the letter, a powerful confirma¬ 
tion of the action of that Roman power every¬ 
where : 

Kingston, April 11, 1855. 

Honorable Sir: Although you have informed me in 
your last letter that it is, and always was, your object to 
enable the Catholics of Upper Canada to educate their 
youth in their own way, it does not appear, however, that 
you intend making, at this session, any of the amendments 
to the present school act which you require me to commu¬ 
nicate in writing to you. If this be the case, what was the 
j use of asking me for my views on the subject of the sepa- 
| rate schools ? I am aware of your difficulties on this point; 

! the chief superintendent of schools of Canada West es¬ 
pecially being opposed to any measure that would be favor¬ 
able to our separate school, and consequently determined, 
if possible, to prevent the amendments we require. But 1 
trust neither you nor the Ministry will be prevented from 
doing us justice by your allowing us the same rights and 
privileges for our separate schools as are granted to the 
Catholics of I.ower Canada. If this be done at the present 
session, we will have no reason tocomplain ; and the odium 
thrown upon you for being controlled by Dr. Ryerson will 
be effectually removed. 

If, on the contrary, the voice of our opponents upon the 
subject of separate schools is more attended to and re¬ 
spected than the voice of the Catholic bishops, the clergy, 
and nearly two hundred thousand of her Majesty’s loyal 
Catholic subjects, claiming justice for the education of their 
youth, surely the Ministry that refuses us such rights can¬ 
not blame us for being displeased with them, and conse¬ 
quently for being determined to use every constitutional 
means in our power to prevent their future return to Par- 
! liament. This, of course, will be the disagreeable alterna- 
j tive to which we shall be obliged to have recourse, if full 
justice be not done us with regard to our separate schools. 

I have the honor to be, honorable sir, your most obedient 
servant, f PATRICK, Bishop of Carrho. 

It has been abundantly shown that the emis¬ 
saries of the Roman pontiff are intensely hostile 
to all systems of liberal education. And yet we 
have witnessed them, even during the manifest¬ 
ation of their hostility, bowing obsequiously to 
party for nomination for school directors. For 
what purpose, sir, have they sought to obtain 
this control? It certainly will not be contended, 
in the face of historical facts, that their purpose 
was to promote republican education, and to lead 
; to a liberal enlightenment of the human mind. 
Far from it, sir. Their object is to “ divide or 
' destroy; and before I would vote for foreign Cath¬ 
olics for school directors, and aid by my vote to 
place them in representative and executive power 
in this country, and thereby, through the ballot- 
box, surrender the Constitution, I would prefer 
with my own hands to tear to atoms that sacred 
instrument, as the hero would break his sword 
before he would yield it dishonorably. 

We have heard much on this floor of the rights 
of foreigners, which, at the best, are but conven¬ 
tional. They have been prescribed by enact¬ 
ment, and that enactment is but a grant by those 
whose rights here are natural. That enactment 
does not establish the right of aliens to form secret 
combinations on our soil—to organize, and drill, 
and arm, and equip, exclusively foreign military 
companies in our midst—nor to hold conventions 
openly to propose the annihilation of all morals, 
education, and religion, and the abolition of exec¬ 
utive offices, aided by Sag Nicht societies, nor to 
the Irish for the formation of repeal associations; 
all of which, from the profound silence of our 
opponents when assailing Americans for forming 
societies to guard and protect our institutions 
against such combinations, they must accord as 

the rights of foreigners;” for those are the only 
“ rights of foreigners” which Americans seek to 




















interfere with, and for which they have been so 
bitterly assailed. 

Americans propose to amend the naturalization 
laws. For my own part I would for the present 
wipe them entirely from our statute-book, or estab¬ 
lish a capitation tax of sufficient amount to protect 
the American working classes, preserve the moral 
character of our country, and effectually clog the 
design of any European Power against the peace 
and liberties of this people. *The right of Gov¬ 
ernment thus to protect is ample—its duty un¬ 
questionable. But, sir, we do not wish to abridge 
the religious or civil rights of Roman Catholics 
or foreign-born. We desire to counteract the 
“ new plan of emigration , ” for the establishment 
of colonies of Roman Catholics in our western 
States, on which subject a pamphlet of thirty-two 
pages has of late years made its appearance 
through Catholic Europe. We desire to protect 
and maintain the American system of Republican 
education. We desire to preserve a unity of 
character for our nation; to promote peace, intel¬ 
ligence, and good government; to confine the 
administration of our civil and diplomatic affairs 
to the hands of the native-born, and to carry out 
in full practice those patriotic principles and pre¬ 
cepts inculcated by the example of our fathers. 
Such is our position, and I take pride in main- 


8 


taining it. Our own immortal Washington has 
prescribed it. Such was the devotion of that 
great leader of our revolutionary forces, whose 
mission on earth was to carry a struggling peo¬ 
ple through their trials, and to establish the prin¬ 
ciples of republican freedom ! While my heart 
shall continue to beat within my bosom, and rea¬ 
son exist unimpaired, I shall ever cherish and 
venerate the memory and precepts of that immor¬ 
tal man! He, in the anxiety of his spirit, cau¬ 
tioned us to beware of foreign influence, and to 
avoid sectional strife—the two great evils which 
now threaten the peace and durability of our 
nation. 

To carry into effect, sir, the doctrines enuncia¬ 
ted by the American party is, in my judgment, 
the only means for preserving the peace, welfare, 
and safety of our free institutions. Already they 
have been seriously shaken by commotions aris¬ 
ing from foreign interference as well as from 
sectional discord; and 1 would therefore appeal 
to the patriotism of the American people — I 
would call upon them and their representatives 
to pause in their career, and consult upon the 
measures which the crisis demands, that we 
may unite upon the means of preserving intact 
the pristine purity of American republican insti¬ 
tutions. 


Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 


\ 



0 













